Secular Trans Feminism

About Zinnia Jones

My work focuses on insights to be found across transgender sociology, public health, psychiatry, history of medicine, cognitive science, the social processes of science, transgender feminism, and human rights, taking an analytic approach that intersects these many perspectives and is guided by the lived experiences of transgender people. I live in Orlando with my family, and work mainly in technical writing.

Categories

Meta

The assumed primacy of penis-in-vagina sex

I’ve often noticed people leaving comments based on the assumption that if someone who (you believe) has a penis and someone who (you believe) has a vagina are having sex, then they must be having penis-in-vagina sex. I’m not going to get into specifics here, because that isn’t anyone’s business, but the topic itself is relevant to just about everyone.

I’m sure that for many of you this will be incredibly obvious, but for others, it’s evidently not. Just because someone has a penis, it does not mean they are at all interested in using it to have vaginal sex – even if the possibility of vaginal sex is readily available to them. Likewise, not everyone with a vagina is interested in having it penetrated by a penis, even if a capable penis is available.

To some people, this apparently defies comprehension. I suppose that shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, as our culture and media often treat “sex” in general as equivalent to penis-in-vagina sex, presenting this as the predominant mode of sexual interaction.

Some will protest, “But this is how lots of people have sex!” And that’s certainly true. But the near-exclusive focus on PIV sex often serves to erase and delegitimize other forms of sex outside of the standard script, limiting people’s imaginations so severely that they might not even understand what anything beyond PIV might look like. When it’s not about a specific type of sex involving the interface between a penis and a vagina, a particular mechanics of sex centered on repeated thrusting, and a timeline of sex oriented around when the penis-bearer has an orgasm, people are seemingly lost.

This is a pretty ridiculous situation. I know we’re not all experts here, but it should be rather obvious that people’s bodies can be stimulated by more than just a penis or a vagina. Anyone with long enough arms should have a very… firm grasp of this.

Yet even when people realize why asking things like “how do lesbians have sex?” is ignorant and unimaginative, they often still persist in the attitude that anything other than PIV is not quite “real” sex. To them, PIV is the indisputable gold standard of sexual activity, the pinnacle of sex itself. Without it, the very fact of two (or more) people having had sex is considered vague, nebulous, and potentially in doubt, because the standard of a penis in a vagina has not been met.

This is more than just harmless nonsense. The narrow focus on PIV is largely responsible for the idea that oral and anal sex are “not really sex”, which is both a dangerous misconception, and sometimes an act of strategic ignorance within an obsolete value system. It also serves as a focal point for the concept of “virginity”, a model which fails to describe sexual experience in any meaningful way despite supposedly existing for this purpose, and instead functions to define a woman’s worth by the history of her vagina.

More than that, the belief that PIV sex is desired and engaged in by anyone for whom it’s possible has a darker side: it implies that those who don’t or can’t have PIV must be suffering in its absence, with their sexual activity being an unsatisfying simulacrum of “real” sex. This perpetuates the idea that the relationships of same-sex couples will always be inadequate in this respect – their sex will never be as good as that of heterosexuals, and as a result, neither will their companionship. And if a gay or lesbian couple does happen to have a combination of bodies which makes PIV sex possible, people assume that it would be their first choice by default. It’s as though they believe penises and vaginas behave like magnets: get them close enough, and contact is inevitable.

This is definitely not the case, and it’s an insult to all the people who are having completely awesome sex without a penis in a vagina. Their sex is real sex, no less real and no less satisfying than anyone else’s. How do they have sex? The answer is: However they want. So let’s stop making unwarranted assumptions about the ways people must be having sex, and the kinds of things they enjoy in bed. That’s just… fucked.

Share this:

About the author

My work focuses on insights to be found across transgender sociology, public health, psychiatry, history of medicine, cognitive science, the social processes of science, transgender feminism, and human rights, taking an analytic approach that intersects these many perspectives and is guided by the lived experiences of transgender people. I live in Orlando with my family, and work mainly in technical writing.

Post navigation

56 thoughts on “The assumed primacy of penis-in-vagina sex”

HAHA YES! This. Took me and my boy 6 months of therapy to get this. Neither of us wanted penetration, and we had to get to the point where neither of us felt pressured to do it before we could have happy sex.

85% of vagina-havers cannot orgasm through PIV alone. When I worked, giving sexual health advice, I encountered a staggering amount of people believing they were broken because they didn’t experience the media myth of:

penis+vagina=OMG FIREWORKS!

They’d cry, self-harm, end relationships etc, because their penis-bearing partner would say “All my former lovers could get off from that”.

If two people aren’t configured in a “put tab A into slot B” way then they have to get more creative. Suddenly every body part is a potential orgasm-giver. I’ve given (self-identified) cisstraight couples, where the woman cannot orgasm during sex, the following prompt: “For the next month PIV is not an option. Penis on vulva is ok, but no penile penetration at all, pretend it’s impossible. Good luck!”

It doesn’t take long for the caps lock emails and PMs to start arriving!

As a dyke I’m lucky, because there is no default sexual act. There are just possibilities and the occasional weird surprise, like “Wait, THAT just made you come? Oh wow!”

Apologies for being crude, but: anyone who thinks ‘sex=penis in vagina’ clearly hasn’t spent much time on porn sites. Really, with the wide diversity of sexual practices that you can find documented on the Internet (including everything you can possibly think of, and plenty you can’t), I’m amazed that anyone can hold such a narrow view of sex these days…

Eesh, I’ve had one physical relationship (focused on manual and oral sex) and even I know there’s way more to sex than PIV. Some women like to be touched and explored, and can get off from just being stroked.

Back in my actively poly days, I had someone say he wanted to have sex with me. We talked about various types of sex, and then he specified he wanted to have “real” sex with me. I turned to him in shock and said “what do you think I’ve been having with my girlfriend all this time, fake sex?” He kinda backpedaled and muttered something about it being different, but it was rather revealing how limited even “progressive” people can be in their views of sex.

I’ve had people assume that since I have a penis and so do my partners, I must be having penis-in-anus sex. Or, if I wasn’t, then I wasn’t having sex. Fortunately my actual partners haven’t been so unimaginative, and neither have I. But holy crap, people, choosing not to do sex one particular way does not make me a virgin.

Yeah, this always bewilders me as a gay guy. I mean obviously two guys can’t do the holy grail of PIV, but there’s always anal, right? Which is What Two Guys Do Together, because it’s inserting tab A into slot B`, which is close enough for government work! Oh, what’s that, you say? Not always up for doing that or not interested at all? It’s not real sex!

Always hilarious* when ridiculous shit like the primacy of PIV as ‘real sex’ winds up getting reflected all the way down the line.

This topic raises a lot more questions than answers.Why would a couple where one has male private parts and the other has female private parts not engage in penis-in-vagina sex?Does the female partner have some type of physical condition that prevents this from happening?Maybe this is a question that only a doctor or a sexual therapist can answer instead of an average citizen who may make a comment that offends the person who brought it up.
Most people have perverted minds,and a topic like this brings many unspoken images to mind.It took a lot of courage to bring this up knowing that people will try to psychoanalyze the person who brought it up in the first place.
If a couple chooses not to have penis-in-vagina sex,it would be one thing if both parteners are experienced in intercourse.But if one is not allowed to do so then how long can such a releationship last?One has to wonder why so many perfect couples break up everyday in today’s society?

Why would a couple where one has male private parts and the other has female private parts not engage in penis-in-vagina sex?

Maybe they just don’t want to. Maybe they really, really like oral. Maybe there’s medical issues, as you said. Maybe one or both partners is trans and having sex in that way feels wrong to their true genders. (I’m cis, but gender dysphoria during sex sounds like the unsexiest thing in the history of the universe.) Who cares? It’s not like there’s not a billion other ways to be intimate and get off.

Does anybody really wonder why couples that look good on the outside sometimes break up in the end? Or think that this is a recent phenomenon? Welcome to human nature, it’s the same as it always was.

And where does “not allowed to do so” even come from? The whole post was about removing arbitrary cultural limitations, not imposing them. Half your comment doesn’t even make sense.

I like you, Robert. And I agree with what you said about people assuming gay men only have “real” sex if they have anal. There are plenty of different ways, not that I know from experience.
Jimmy Carr describing Stephen Fry: “He doesn’t take an active interest, but he reads” – that applies to me too.
I’m trans but I am also asexual, (ahh, to add to your already impressive list of reasons – asexuality)
The dysphoria makes me feel sick, but I realise if I had the right fully-functioning parts (which I never will seeing as I am a transman) I wouldn’t really care about having sex, eventhough I would feel a lot more comfortable about myself.

Yeah, I’ve had quite a few heterosexual relationships that didn’t involve a P going into a V, for reasons ranging from personal taste to physical incompatibility. As long as a good time is had by all, It’s all good.

Thank you so much for this. For years it’s driven me crazy that “having sex” is always meant to be PIV sex. There is a whole range of what sex means in my relationship, and as you say, being told implicitly and explicitly that this isn’t “really” sex is incredibly frustrating.

It’s still my ideal end point(in general, but this can change on a case by case basis depending on my partner), but wow… I hadn’t really thought about how I was extending that to any pairing. Even my friends who are lesbians and married to each other. That bothers me a lot, given how important seeing them happy together was to accepting I’m bi myself.

If it’s the gold standard for a given couple, that’s fine for them. Whatever works. But yeah… why the hell does it have to be the case for other people to? Sex is used for more than just reproduction. Why are the other uses of sex somehow less legitimate?

Why, when I’ve had sex with men, it’s felt somehow less real, even compared to similarly serious(or not serious) relations with women?

Stuff to think about. Thanks for pointing out the baggage I’ve been carrying. It’s a hit to my pride that I had such stupid views here, but at least I can see it for what it is once it’s pointed out. I suppose that counts for something.

Zinnia wrote: “I’m not going to get into specifics here, because that isn’t anyone’s business”

Using the argument that certain things will not be discussed or stated because “it isn’t anyone’s business” is extremely common. It is also commonly unaddressed and unopposed.

To me it often appears as a defensive tactic used to shield one’s irrational vulnerabilities from criticism. It can be similar to the “respect my beliefs” demand that some theists use, it is basically a road block – none shall pass.

Zinnia, you value free thought, critical analysis and self-awareness – have you examined, do you understand and can you explain why you have used this justification of “isn’t anyone’s business” in this case?

Zinnia wrote: “Because the topics discussed have merit and relevance in a wider sense and beyond the activities of two specific people.”

For someone as articulate as yourself, it’s hard for me to believe that you would use the phrase “not anyone’s business” in an attempt to convey the justification you have just given above. It looks like a post hoc rationalization to me.

In any case, whilst the topic does have wider relevance than just your own personal situation, it does not inherently stand in opposition to your personal situation either; in other words the topic has relevance to a wider audience AND relevance to your personal situation.

Therefore, to assert(as you appear to have) that the topic has wider relevance with the underlying implication being that this somehow inherently justifies quashing the personal side of the equation, is not in itself a logical progression. Just because it has wider relevance does not in and of itself justify you actively seeking to prevent any knowledge or discussion of the personal side of it.

Whilst it may not always be the best course of action, personal “transparency” and not erecting barriers between the private and personal worlds(and a general reduction in “compartmentalization”) can help to expose more potential errors/flaws to wider criticism and analysis, and potentially lead to more consistency too. It may have detrimental effects and dangers too….

For someone as articulate as yourself, it’s hard for me to believe that you would use the phrase “not anyone’s business” in an attempt to convey the justification you have just given above. It looks like a post hoc rationalization to me.

You appear to have neglected to explain what would be gained by providing a detailed and intimate description of my personal sex life, or how such information would do anything to impact the validity of the arguments I made.

In any case, whilst the topic does have wider relevance than just your own personal situation, it does not inherently stand in opposition to your personal situation either; in other words the topic has relevance to a wider audience AND relevance to your personal situation.

You appear to have neglected to explain what would be gained by providing a detailed and intimate description of my personal sex life, or how such information would do anything to impact the validity of the arguments I made.

Therefore, to assert(as you appear to have) that the topic has wider relevance with the underlying implication being that this somehow inherently justifies quashing the personal side of the equation, is not in itself a logical progression. Just because it has wider relevance does not in and of itself justify you actively seeking to prevent any knowledge or discussion of the personal side of it.

You appear to have neglected to explain what would be gained by providing a detailed and intimate description of my personal sex life, or how such information would do anything to impact the validity of the arguments I made.

Whilst it may not always be the best course of action, personal “transparency” and not erecting barriers between the private and personal worlds(and a general reduction in “compartmentalization”) can help to expose more potential errors/flaws to wider criticism and analysis, and potentially lead to more consistency too. It may have detrimental effects and dangers too….

You appear to have neglected to explain what would be gained by providing a detailed and intimate description of my personal sex life, or how such information would do anything to impact the validity of the arguments I made.

Zinnia wrote: “You appear to have neglected to explain what would be gained by providing a detailed and intimate description of my personal sex life, or how such information would do anything to impact the validity of the arguments I made.”

The last sentence of my previous post lists some important things that might be gained.

—

The question still remains unanswered as to why you would so overtly and pre-emptively(in the second sentence of your essay) attempt to quash discussion using the phrase “not anyone’s business.” It is a very bad look. The phrase strongly connotes censorship, irrational defensiveness, unwillingness to be transparent, inconsistency etc. Will you continue with your defensiveness or address this question directly?

For someone as articulate verbose as yourself, it’s hard for me to believe that you would use the phrase “not anyone’s business” screen name ‘Anonymous’ in an attempt to convey the justification you have just given above clumsily and presumptuously demand of Zinnia “TELL ME WHO YOU FUCK AND HOW YOU DO IT!”

It looks like a post hoc rationalization an astounding lack of creativity, with a huge dollop of profound arrogance to me.

There appears to be a misconception in your understanding of my argument. I’m not in fact arguing(let alone demanding) that Zinnia intricately publicly detail hir sexual activities. I’m actually pointing out what I think may be a sign of irrational defensiveness that sHe may not be aware, or have examined. It’s an important (but perhaps somewhat subtle) difference….

Zinnia wrote: “Keep in mind that you have almost literally told me, “It is essential that the rest of us know precisely how you and your sex partners have had sex with one another.” For the most flimsy of reasons.

Number 1, you need to come up with a damn good justification for such a request. ”

You seem to have the same misunderstanding of my argument as Nym Too.

My argument is NOT that it is essential that you graphically detail your sexual experiences.

My issue is with the way that you so overtly attempted to pre-emptively prevent any discussion of your personal sexual experiences. To make matters worse, you used the phrase “not anyone’s business” when attempting this, which as a phrase strongly implies(to me)various undesirable qualities which I have already previously outlined.

Zinnia wrote “And number 2, boundaries. Learn them, respect them.”

Maybe you could expand upon what you mean by this because it’s rather nebulous.

1) The discussion is about the ciscentric and heterocentric trope that PIV = sex. This is easy to grasp, no? This discussion is not about how Zinnia has sex, or who she has it with.

2) When I was about two yor three ears old my mammy told me that my body belonged to me. She told me that nobody had the right to touch me, and that I had no right to touch other people.

It was obviously phrased more simply than that, but I got it. It was a concept that was routinely revisited, added to, and clarified as I got older. I was entitled to space and privacy, and so was everyone else. Easy.

That’s what boundaries are. They’re protective fences around our bodies and our minds. Trans-spectruw people routinely have to endure entitlement-minded cis people destroying those fences. They ask invasive questions about sex, they ask the trans* person to describe, or even show them their genitals.

They then have to cope with a barrage of statements like “Oh, so you’re not really an [identity] then, are you” or “That’s so weird/cool/hot”.

You suggest that they could show flaws in the reasoning. How could her experiences materially impact the strength of her arguments here? This isn’t a presentation of some empirical fact, after all. If it was, you might have a point, but this is essentially an opinion video. A light acknowledgement that she’s got relevant experience of some sort(which her “none of your business” bit seems to suffice for) is, I think, plenty in this case.

It might be interesting to see more of how she came to this opinion, but I’m still not seeing how that would be required for either understanding the point she has made, or, if you want to, required for refuting it. And “might be interesting” does not override “none of my business”. She’s not running for office, where the process of how she came to her opinion is relevant to predict how she might handle future events.

That said, some concrete examples might have made it easier to understand, apparently it went way over some peoples heads(I’m not sure how though). I still don’t see how these would have to be her experiences. Even made up stories to illustrate the point would have worked.

At a bare minimum, my personal experiences are simply immaterial to the points I was making. I don’t think it’s beyond understanding that while some people may be cut out for speaking in some detail about their own sex lives in public – and they’re certainly welcome to – others are not. And I think everyone should be allowed to decide that for themselves, without it compromising their arguments when those arguments do not depend on these particular bits of information. Is that so irrational? I don’t believe so.

Also, I don’t see why I shouldn’t be able to be just a tad defensive about this when, as I pointed out, people are inclined to speculate about my sex life in ways that I consider to be unnecessarily prying. Is this something that people ought to accept and simply be expected to deal with, without complaint?

Zinnia wrote: “At a bare minimum, my personal experiences are simply immaterial to the points I was making.”

Sure, the value and validity of one’s points are not necessarily dependent on the particulars of the one making them. I’m not suggesting otherwise.

Zinnia wrote: “Also, I don’t see why I shouldn’t be able to be just a tad defensive about this when, as I pointed out, people are inclined to speculate about my sex life in ways that I consider to be unnecessarily prying. Is this something that people ought to accept and simply be expected to deal with, without complaint?”

Sharing personal experiences and thoughts allows feedback to occur that can lead to new insights and knowledge. It’s essentially a form of “peer review”(although, I think there are few who are your peer 😉 )

Protecting certain areas of one’s self from external scrutiny can be a red flag. Why one is protecting these areas is important. One may think that these areas will not survive criticism, or that it will be painful to have deeply held beliefs challenged etc.

Thus far you’ve offered “unnecessarily prying” and “not anyone’s business”, both of which strike me as weak justifications on first impression.

Possibly specifically relevant to the P.I.V. topic, and akin again to scientific peer review, is the issue of “conflicts of interest” that can lead to conscious or unconscious bias.

I’ve also observed that the “private and none of your business” psychological category is often a reflection of unexamined socio-cultural conditioning and norms. Quite similar and overlapping with the taboos category.

Both categories filled with inherited irrational ghosts of the past(“the genital region must be kept covered at all times” “women must stay isolated in a hut whilst menstruating” etc etc.) Not things a thinking person would want to leave unexplored.

My sex life, safe, sane and consenting as it is, does not require “peer review”. And that should be the end of the story. Your desire for “external scrutiny” of such private conduct does *not* present a moral imperative for anyone to share their sex lives openly.

This is becoming tedious. You don’t seem to be getting the wider point. Again, my criticism is not about your sex life per se. My criticism is that you very actively and preemptively sought to deny any examination and discussion of a part of your life/thoughts/beliefs/experiences(even before any attempt had been made to do so.)

Don’t you see that there could be value in allowing others to examine and give feedback about your life/thoughts/beliefs/experiences? Someone who values truth, self-awareness and self-knowledge should be able to clearly see the potential benefits in this.

When you so actively seek to make parts of your life absolutely off-limits, particularly when you give very questionable justifications for doing so like “unnecessarily prying” and “not anyone’s business”, it suggests that you’re more interested in protecting yourself/beliefs than seeking truth.

I am not suggesting that you needed to describe your actual sexual experiences – I am saying that you shouldn’t have actively sought to prevent discussion of them from the outset. Big difference.

If your essay were exactly the same(ie. with no details of your personal sexual experiences) except it omitted “I’m not going to get into specifics here, because that isn’t anyone’s business”, I wouldn’t have had this objection about it.

If you just want to be another activist, ultimately simply interested in influencing social and political structures to suit your preferences, then your stance may be congruent with this. If, however, you want to be a philosopher, a seeker of truth, I think you need to realize this inconsistency and weakness that you’ve shown.

Does someone talking about the benefits of, say, laissez-faire capitalism need to discuss their personal economic experience that informs their views? Or is it ok for them to discuss it in more universal terms?

gworroll wrote: “Does someone talking about the benefits of, say, laissez-faire capitalism need to discuss their personal economic experience that informs their views? Or is it ok for them to discuss it in more universal terms?”

This is not my argument. Are you even reading what I’ve written? Abstract impersonal discussion is fine. Actively, overtly, preemptively seeking to quash any discussion of more personal matters is the issue.

When Zinnia claims to value things like philosophy, self-awareness, self-knowledge and truth, the issue of quashing discussion like this takes on significant importance.

Zinnia could have easily kept her entire essay abstract and impersonal without the need of an additional defensive proclamation decreeing no personal specifics were to be discussed. Her decision to make this addition is suspect.

(In relation to your example: attempting to block personal discussion may not be of significant importance to an economist or someone else who is discussing capitalism if they do not also concurrently profess a strong desire for self-awareness, truth etc like Zinnia does.)

Nym Too, you’ve misrepresented and possibly misunderstood my previous post(s.) I have already repeated my points several times attempting to remedy misconceptions. I suggest you reread what I have already posted. If you can make a response that relates to my actual points I’ll endeavor to reply.

I think I kind of get what the troll is saying, but the way I read the “offending” sentence was that it was stating an absolute truth. This truth takes nothing away from the intention of the article – which BTW could be reduced to one sentence – the one the troll finds offensive.

It should be of no interest to anyone how sexual partners enjoy the physical aspects of their relationship, only that they find it mutually enjoyable.

Dont feed the trolls. This guy is intentionally attacking a point that isn’t something that can be discussed, only pointed out. When the obvious is addressed he goes back to his defensive shield of, ‘you just don’t get it!’. It’s an old blowhard political technique of attacking someone’s credibility while avoiding libel and slander.

Comment submitted:
Also you make it seem as though only non hetero people know about non PIV sex when in fact we know very well about that. Also I am wondering why you are ranting about this at all as I don’t see it as a burning issue. Most of us I think , who are very experienced with sex know many ways to give and receive sexual pleasure and are quite happy to have sex that involves little or no sexual intercourse. I had sex last night where the intercourse was for a minute or so and we both liked that part of things but we had more pleasure from kissing and touching and did this for more than an hour. So please don’t go on as though the majority of people are ignorant as to the scope of sexual pleasure.Perhaps it is the people following this blog that are that ignorant, as it seems so from the commentary. You are being very presumptuos and arrogant in your opinion. Your meanderings are for the inexperienced for sure. I also don’t see anyone wanting to know your business concerning your sex life, but I find it interesting that you want to come off as an expert but are not willing to share your own specific experience. No cred there! Let’s talk about everyone else in the most general and presumptuos way but hey hands off anything to do with you.I am not saying it is imperative that you do but it does sound childish to say that it is nobodys business as that assertion should be self evident. You can protect and maintain your privacy by simply not talking about it but to say ‘it’s non of your business’…that is school girl talk, meaning it is very immature.So you just come across as whiny when you use that expression. I am thinking that I should start a blog like this but the difference would be that I would have no fear in sharing any and all that I have done sexaully including the abuse I endured as a child. You seem to want to hide behind your persona of a sex expert and don’t want to share anything for fear you may demonstrate inexperience or misunderstanding regarding sexual behaviour.